Buy Prints!!!

Support Street Photography!

Want to keep the "real" Korea experience with you always? Prints of any documentary/art photo I have taken on this site are 175,000 KRW ($175 USD), signed, numbered, and framed. For the print only, you need only pay 125,000 KRW ($125 USD) for the same without the frame. Please contact me directly via email for orders.

Google Analytics

BLOG LEGAL

Must Read

September 16, 2008

Do You Want to Stop John McCain?

Then DO SOMETHING.

It's doesn't take much, and so go the words of a well-organized site called "TheRealMcCain.com" -- it presents the information, cites its sources, and shows you the videos. And it shows context -- what the Republicans generally throw out the window when the other side says anything they can shoehorn into something they can use, but use as a magical shield when they do things such as outright lie or contradict themselves.

I mean, when KARL ROVE calls the McCain campaign out for their complete lack of truth, you know something's gotta be wrong. Like when Bush was running for the 2000 election, I continued to not believe that such a man could be running such a tight race. Now, after Bush, we're in a similar situation. I do believe that justice tends to prevail in this world, and that America will go in the right direction of history, but it's possible we won't, and I want to be at least able to say I did all I could to stop McCain from being elected.

If you agree that McCain (not to mention Palin) would be bad for our country, please send either this post or TheRealMcCain site to at least 10 friends who care about the future of the country. I don't want a president known for his intemperance, belligerent foreign policy stance, and inability to define one's own set of beliefs -- and a vice-president whose ignorance adds to the same traits she shares with her would-be commander-in-chief.

Those who complain about "liberal smears" on the left need to keep up with the fact that the revelations are being confirmed and they're getting worse. And the recent interview? She "can see Russia" from Alaska? That's how she answers a real question talking about dealing with Russia in the future? To be fair, she was being asked about how Alaska's proximity to Russia might help her deal with that nation, but even that stupid statement was only bouncing off something she had already said, and it appeared she was being given a chance to clarify/wiggle out of it -- yet she simply went further in the wrong direction.

Because her state is the closest to Russia, she somehow magically has a greater ability to deal with said country? Not like having studied the language, culture, economics, or history of that influential nation, but because she lived in Alaska. Riiiight.

And on the Bush Doctrine? Considering the fact she didn't even know what it was, and in talking out of her ass, actually potentially got herself in deeper trouble, I guess *I'm* more qualified to be VP, since I at least knew what it WAS.

I'll say it. She's lipstick on a pig. And I DO mean that in the figurative sense. I don't have any problem at all with a woman holding higher office, and fully believe that a woman can be just as qualified as any man to hold either position. Hillary certainly was, although I didn't like her because many other reasons that had nothing to do with gender.

I also don't like Palin, for reasons that have nothing to do with gender. However, I am sickened by the way the gender card is so obviously and cynically being played her, and how their camp is so clearly going after women in her nomination. I don't even begrudge them that strategy -- it's politics. But of all people, to try to paint Obama and the far more progressive politics he represents as somehow being unapologetic sexist bastards (coming from the man who called his own WIFE a "trollop" and a "CUNT", and Asian Americans "gooks" -- who is the McCain camp to feign indignation and shock at a statement, ignoring the obvious context in which it was used? If you're gonna get all up in arms about it, even if Obama HAD actually meant it in the way they allege, it's better than the frickin' C-word. Because we're actually supposed to be concerned with attitudes towards women here, right?

But people will say he was being "disrespectful" or "disruptive." Really? What happened to the tradition of the "town hall meeting?" Isn't McCain a straight talker? Notice he didn't answer the question in the negative, because he could be called on it later. Yeah, the word's offensive, but the questioner wasn't doing the calling -- he was confirming reports that MCCAIN had used the word.

And about lying about the question in order to be able to ask one -- considering what they did to a 61-year-old librarian lady who was merely holding a sign saying "McCain=Bush", asking a frank or pointed question would have gotten anyone booted.

She was cited for trespassing. But they were going to let her in if she relinquished the sign. But she's trespassing if she has it?

What kind of police state we running here? Are there actually "conservatives" who believe this is right? These are same the flag-waving idiots so willing and wanting to believe that the Obama campaign was throwing away American flags that it doesn't matter that it actually DIDN'T, and they had become petty thieves and liars? I mean, even the pictures of the flags they distributed shows they were quite neatly wrapped and bundled.

Are people actually buying this hogwash? Or allowing this kind of BS to go through? That Obama "is a Muslim?" These idiots, who get their panties in a bind over the slightest slight, yet regularly distort the truth and accept the biggest whoppers one can imagine. See, take the "Obama is a Muslim" thing. For one, in an ideal world, the fact of being a Muslim SHOULDN'T even matter, but I do live in the real world, so I think we on the side of religious freedom and the Bill of Rights have generally conceded this point, since no Black muslim with a funny name would ever get elected. This IS America, after all.

So let me call a spade a spade.

Basically, all the strained contortions to assert certain things by some, combined with the all-to-quick willingness by others to believe in the most specious and wild assumptions without a moment's hesitation nor a shred of real proof is good ole-fashioned Repub/Dem politics.

But there's something more, I feel. There's also a cognitive dissonance here, one formed by the fact that yes, Obama is BLACK, yet many don't want to admit, even and especially to themselves, that they don't want to vote for a "nigger." I'm gonna say it. I said it. That shit's IN THERE, and both my intellect and my gut tell me that ingredient's in the stew.

I'm not saying that all McCain acolytes are all racists, but I think that there are a lot of racists in the McCain camp. But that's on top of their lying, double-talking, and cynical displays of false righteousness.

There's a lot of reasons I hate McCain and Palin. It's not just petty politics or the fact that I am a registered Democrat. I've called the Dems a bunch of punks before (when they were running their pansified Kerry campaign), and I registered as a Green to allow Nader to get on the ballot and into the debates, but I voted Democrat because I didn't think Nader would or could win. And I felt that yes, there WAS a difference between the two parties and that Gore being president over a complete idiot was important. But I did want to see Nader keep the two major candidates honest.

I vote for the better person. Had Colin Powell ever run, I would have likely voted for him over anyone then on the political field, even if he had run as a Republican. But that was a different time, in the 1990's, when I had more respect for the man, before that bogus presentation at the UN. But given the right candidate, I could actually be a Republican (*SHUDDER*) if I agreed with their economics and they backed off of the Far Right agenda. Basically, if this were an alternate universe and a super Colin Powell had run as a left-of-centrist candidate and made a point of standing for a certain kind of morality at home and even-handedness overseas. That could have been a great combination and reinvigorated the Republican party, perhaps even reshape it completely -- albeit, in an alternate, DC Comics, Earth-C universe.

I wasn't all that happy with Gore in 2000, and was decidedly unhappy with Kerry in 2004. I didn't have any issues with the two men per se, and thought Kerry's swiftboating one of the world lies I had ever seen perpetrated on both an American politician and the populace in my lifetime, but I still wasn't revved up by either of them. It was definitely "lesser of two evils" choosing, and I was cynical about being cynical with my vote. Yet, I had never known any different, since I'd only been able to vote a few times ever.

But as it is, in 2008, the Republican choice are positively vile. And the Democratic choice is absolutely awe-inspiring. The reason I'm saying this is because I want to make it clear that I don't say this every election. I also am saying that it's not because Barack is black, because Lord knows that it was blacks who were MOST skeptical at the beginning of Obama ("they're just gonna shoot him, you know" or "do you really think they'll vote for a black man?" were constants there), and I never voted for Jesse Jackson. Had my vote been determined by racial identity politics, I never would have voted for Clinton, just like the vast majority of black voters.

There's much more going on here this time, and the fate of the world is literally at stake, especially given McCain's various views on foreign policy and a VP whose ignorance of the Bush Doctrine is shocking, even as she bullshits her way out of the question yet continues right on, letting her fumbling for a point let her be led into basically all but saying that America would have to go to war with Russia.

In a world this fucked up, with America in two wars and potentially being able to be dragged into two more if we're not careful (with Iran and Russia, for those not paying attention), and our economy in the worst shape in Alan Greenspan's life, can even you Republicans afford to continue to equivocate and fool yourselves into thinking that Obama would somehow be worse for America than McCain?

That's what I simply don't get. Even accounting for my own biases, beliefs, and previous political leanings can't help me understand why anyone would vote for John McCain. At least I UNDERSTOOD the person who voted for Bush, even if I disgreed with them. I talk all the time to Koreans, especially in my American history/culture classes, why people could connect with Bush and who could vote for him.

But McCain? We're not even talking about the religious right. Or the "guy you could relate to and have a beer with." Or who has a wife who's a really classy and respectable woman, who lives up to the moniker of "First Lady." And Bush, as much as I consider him a cretin, is still someone I believe actually believes what he's doing is right, as much as I totally disagree with his decisions.

And McCain isn't even consistent with himself, or his own maverick-ness. So, the political stars and planets didn't line up in a way that allowed for a maverick to take control of the Republican party this time around. So, he basically sold his own principles down the river to get one last, real chance at sitting in the big chair. It's understandable -- he's old, it's his last real chance, and one doesn't get the Republican nomination by being a REAL maverick.

That's why I can't vote for McCain -- of course -- but also why I can't understand why anyone who really understands where this country has been for the last 7 years and where we need to go would ever do so, either.

Regardless of present or previous party affiliation. As a Dem, I could envision a scenario in which I could vote Republican; this time around, isn't this the only possible time many Republicans could do the same in the other direction? When you really think about it, especially in terms of being on the right "side of history?"

Comments

Do You Want to Stop John McCain?

Then DO SOMETHING.

It's doesn't take much, and so go the words of a well-organized site called "TheRealMcCain.com" -- it presents the information, cites its sources, and shows you the videos. And it shows context -- what the Republicans generally throw out the window when the other side says anything they can shoehorn into something they can use, but use as a magical shield when they do things such as outright lie or contradict themselves.

I mean, when KARL ROVE calls the McCain campaign out for their complete lack of truth, you know something's gotta be wrong. Like when Bush was running for the 2000 election, I continued to not believe that such a man could be running such a tight race. Now, after Bush, we're in a similar situation. I do believe that justice tends to prevail in this world, and that America will go in the right direction of history, but it's possible we won't, and I want to be at least able to say I did all I could to stop McCain from being elected.

If you agree that McCain (not to mention Palin) would be bad for our country, please send either this post or TheRealMcCain site to at least 10 friends who care about the future of the country. I don't want a president known for his intemperance, belligerent foreign policy stance, and inability to define one's own set of beliefs -- and a vice-president whose ignorance adds to the same traits she shares with her would-be commander-in-chief.

Those who complain about "liberal smears" on the left need to keep up with the fact that the revelations are being confirmed and they're getting worse. And the recent interview? She "can see Russia" from Alaska? That's how she answers a real question talking about dealing with Russia in the future? To be fair, she was being asked about how Alaska's proximity to Russia might help her deal with that nation, but even that stupid statement was only bouncing off something she had already said, and it appeared she was being given a chance to clarify/wiggle out of it -- yet she simply went further in the wrong direction.

Because her state is the closest to Russia, she somehow magically has a greater ability to deal with said country? Not like having studied the language, culture, economics, or history of that influential nation, but because she lived in Alaska. Riiiight.

And on the Bush Doctrine? Considering the fact she didn't even know what it was, and in talking out of her ass, actually potentially got herself in deeper trouble, I guess *I'm* more qualified to be VP, since I at least knew what it WAS.

I'll say it. She's lipstick on a pig. And I DO mean that in the figurative sense. I don't have any problem at all with a woman holding higher office, and fully believe that a woman can be just as qualified as any man to hold either position. Hillary certainly was, although I didn't like her because many other reasons that had nothing to do with gender.

I also don't like Palin, for reasons that have nothing to do with gender. However, I am sickened by the way the gender card is so obviously and cynically being played her, and how their camp is so clearly going after women in her nomination. I don't even begrudge them that strategy -- it's politics. But of all people, to try to paint Obama and the far more progressive politics he represents as somehow being unapologetic sexist bastards (coming from the man who called his own WIFE a "trollop" and a "CUNT", and Asian Americans "gooks" -- who is the McCain camp to feign indignation and shock at a statement, ignoring the obvious context in which it was used? If you're gonna get all up in arms about it, even if Obama HAD actually meant it in the way they allege, it's better than the frickin' C-word. Because we're actually supposed to be concerned with attitudes towards women here, right?

But people will say he was being "disrespectful" or "disruptive." Really? What happened to the tradition of the "town hall meeting?" Isn't McCain a straight talker? Notice he didn't answer the question in the negative, because he could be called on it later. Yeah, the word's offensive, but the questioner wasn't doing the calling -- he was confirming reports that MCCAIN had used the word.

And about lying about the question in order to be able to ask one -- considering what they did to a 61-year-old librarian lady who was merely holding a sign saying "McCain=Bush", asking a frank or pointed question would have gotten anyone booted.

She was cited for trespassing. But they were going to let her in if she relinquished the sign. But she's trespassing if she has it?

What kind of police state we running here? Are there actually "conservatives" who believe this is right? These are same the flag-waving idiots so willing and wanting to believe that the Obama campaign was throwing away American flags that it doesn't matter that it actually DIDN'T, and they had become petty thieves and liars? I mean, even the pictures of the flags they distributed shows they were quite neatly wrapped and bundled.

Are people actually buying this hogwash? Or allowing this kind of BS to go through? That Obama "is a Muslim?" These idiots, who get their panties in a bind over the slightest slight, yet regularly distort the truth and accept the biggest whoppers one can imagine. See, take the "Obama is a Muslim" thing. For one, in an ideal world, the fact of being a Muslim SHOULDN'T even matter, but I do live in the real world, so I think we on the side of religious freedom and the Bill of Rights have generally conceded this point, since no Black muslim with a funny name would ever get elected. This IS America, after all.

So let me call a spade a spade.

Basically, all the strained contortions to assert certain things by some, combined with the all-to-quick willingness by others to believe in the most specious and wild assumptions without a moment's hesitation nor a shred of real proof is good ole-fashioned Repub/Dem politics.

But there's something more, I feel. There's also a cognitive dissonance here, one formed by the fact that yes, Obama is BLACK, yet many don't want to admit, even and especially to themselves, that they don't want to vote for a "nigger." I'm gonna say it. I said it. That shit's IN THERE, and both my intellect and my gut tell me that ingredient's in the stew.

I'm not saying that all McCain acolytes are all racists, but I think that there are a lot of racists in the McCain camp. But that's on top of their lying, double-talking, and cynical displays of false righteousness.

There's a lot of reasons I hate McCain and Palin. It's not just petty politics or the fact that I am a registered Democrat. I've called the Dems a bunch of punks before (when they were running their pansified Kerry campaign), and I registered as a Green to allow Nader to get on the ballot and into the debates, but I voted Democrat because I didn't think Nader would or could win. And I felt that yes, there WAS a difference between the two parties and that Gore being president over a complete idiot was important. But I did want to see Nader keep the two major candidates honest.

I vote for the better person. Had Colin Powell ever run, I would have likely voted for him over anyone then on the political field, even if he had run as a Republican. But that was a different time, in the 1990's, when I had more respect for the man, before that bogus presentation at the UN. But given the right candidate, I could actually be a Republican (*SHUDDER*) if I agreed with their economics and they backed off of the Far Right agenda. Basically, if this were an alternate universe and a super Colin Powell had run as a left-of-centrist candidate and made a point of standing for a certain kind of morality at home and even-handedness overseas. That could have been a great combination and reinvigorated the Republican party, perhaps even reshape it completely -- albeit, in an alternate, DC Comics, Earth-C universe.

I wasn't all that happy with Gore in 2000, and was decidedly unhappy with Kerry in 2004. I didn't have any issues with the two men per se, and thought Kerry's swiftboating one of the world lies I had ever seen perpetrated on both an American politician and the populace in my lifetime, but I still wasn't revved up by either of them. It was definitely "lesser of two evils" choosing, and I was cynical about being cynical with my vote. Yet, I had never known any different, since I'd only been able to vote a few times ever.

But as it is, in 2008, the Republican choice are positively vile. And the Democratic choice is absolutely awe-inspiring. The reason I'm saying this is because I want to make it clear that I don't say this every election. I also am saying that it's not because Barack is black, because Lord knows that it was blacks who were MOST skeptical at the beginning of Obama ("they're just gonna shoot him, you know" or "do you really think they'll vote for a black man?" were constants there), and I never voted for Jesse Jackson. Had my vote been determined by racial identity politics, I never would have voted for Clinton, just like the vast majority of black voters.

There's much more going on here this time, and the fate of the world is literally at stake, especially given McCain's various views on foreign policy and a VP whose ignorance of the Bush Doctrine is shocking, even as she bullshits her way out of the question yet continues right on, letting her fumbling for a point let her be led into basically all but saying that America would have to go to war with Russia.

In a world this fucked up, with America in two wars and potentially being able to be dragged into two more if we're not careful (with Iran and Russia, for those not paying attention), and our economy in the worst shape in Alan Greenspan's life, can even you Republicans afford to continue to equivocate and fool yourselves into thinking that Obama would somehow be worse for America than McCain?

That's what I simply don't get. Even accounting for my own biases, beliefs, and previous political leanings can't help me understand why anyone would vote for John McCain. At least I UNDERSTOOD the person who voted for Bush, even if I disgreed with them. I talk all the time to Koreans, especially in my American history/culture classes, why people could connect with Bush and who could vote for him.

But McCain? We're not even talking about the religious right. Or the "guy you could relate to and have a beer with." Or who has a wife who's a really classy and respectable woman, who lives up to the moniker of "First Lady." And Bush, as much as I consider him a cretin, is still someone I believe actually believes what he's doing is right, as much as I totally disagree with his decisions.

And McCain isn't even consistent with himself, or his own maverick-ness. So, the political stars and planets didn't line up in a way that allowed for a maverick to take control of the Republican party this time around. So, he basically sold his own principles down the river to get one last, real chance at sitting in the big chair. It's understandable -- he's old, it's his last real chance, and one doesn't get the Republican nomination by being a REAL maverick.

That's why I can't vote for McCain -- of course -- but also why I can't understand why anyone who really understands where this country has been for the last 7 years and where we need to go would ever do so, either.

Regardless of present or previous party affiliation. As a Dem, I could envision a scenario in which I could vote Republican; this time around, isn't this the only possible time many Republicans could do the same in the other direction? When you really think about it, especially in terms of being on the right "side of history?"

"Why Be Critical?"

Before you say this site is "anti-Korean" or bashing Korea – read this: "Why Be Critical?" Chances are, if you're simply angry because I am a social critic in Korea but not actually Korean, see if your argument isn't just a kneejerk response that follows these patterns.

Twitter!

Photo Classes!

Session 1: Just the Basics
Dealing with the basic operations and functions of your DSLR, explaining each function, button, and doo-hickey. The bulk of the session is likely going to stick around the relationship between aperture and shutter, as well as depth-of-field. Basically everything on your camera has something to do with this relationship.

Session 2: Composition and Shooting (Shooting Session 1)
We'll take those examples and look at them on the big screen, while also answering the concrete questions that will pop up about the stuff we learned before. Then we'll talk about composition and other framing issues, including lens lengths and why some lenses are worth $100 bucks and some are worth $10,000.

Session 3: Flashes and Advanced Exposure (Shooting Session 2)
Dealing with flash, in terms of compensating above and below exposure levels (bracketing), as well as other bracketing techniques in general.

Session 4: Final Session/Critiques
Keeping it open, determined by the class.

Four 3-hour sessions, as well as shooting sessions, photo discussions, and critiques. An individual photo essay will also be done as part of the ongoing class assignments. Inquire at the email address at the top right of this page.

As for my photo book (now in limbo due to editorial differences with the publisher), you can see the representative chapters from the "Seoul Essays" posts below. Note that Chapter 3 remains undone and in limbo on my computer: